In re Reeves-Toney v. School District No. 1 in the City & County of Denver
No. 18SA228
Supreme Court of the State of Colorado
May 28, 2019
2019 CO 40
Honorable J. Eric Elliff, Judge
Original Proceeding Pursuant to C.A.R. 21. District Court, City and County of Denver, Case No. 18CV31058. Rule Made Absolute en banc.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch’s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association’s homepage at http://www.cobar.org.
ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE
May 28, 2019
2019 CO 40
No. 18SA228, In re Reeves-Toney v. School District No. 1 in the City & County of Denver—Standing—Persons Entitled to Sue—Taxpayers.
In this original proceeding under
Attorney for Plaintiff:
Charles Kaiser
Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Defendant:
Molly H. Ferrer
Denver, Colorado
Connelly Law, LLC
Sean Connelly
Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amici Curiae the State of Colorado and the People of Colorado:
Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General
Julie C. Tolleson, First Assistant Attorney General
Joseph Peters, Assistant Attorney General
Danny Rheiner, Assistant Attorney General
Denver, Colorado
JUSTICE
¶1 In this original proceeding under
¶2 DPS moved to dismiss Reeves-Toney’s complaint, arguing, among other things, that she lacks standing to bring her claim. The trial court agreed that Reeves-Toney lacks individual standing, but nevertheless concluded
¶3 DPS sought
I. Background
¶4 In 2010, the General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 10-191 (SB 191), which significantly amended TECDA provisions concerning teacher contracts and the transfer process.1 SB 191 eliminated the earlier practice of transferring teachers to schools without the consent of the principal of the recipient school. See §
¶5 Under SB 191, nonprobationary teachers2 who were deemed effective during the prior school year and who have not secured a mutual consent placement become members of a “priority hiring pool” for available positions. §
¶6 This is the third time this court has considered a challenge to the constitutionality of SB 191. Last year, we took up two challenges to the law’s unpaid leave provisions. In Johnson v. School District No. 1 in the County of Denver, we addressed certified questions of law from the Tenth Circuit in a case in which a teacher argued that her placement on unpaid leave under section
¶7 In School District No. 1 in the City & County of Denver v. Masters, several teachers, together with the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA), alleged that DPS had invoked SB 191 to place hundreds of teachers on unpaid leave in violation of their rights to due process of law and the contracts clause of the Colorado Constitution. 2018 CO 18, ¶ 1, 413 P.3d 723, 725. Citing our decision in Johnson, announced the same day, we held that TECDA did not create a contractual relationship or vest nonprobationary teachers placed on unpaid leave with a property interest in salary and benefits. Id. at ¶ 2, 413 P.3d at 725-26.
¶8 Approximately two weeks after we issued our decisions in Johnson and Masters, Reeves-Toney filed the complaint in this case, raising the present challenge to SB 191’s mutual consent provisions based on article
II. Facts and Procedural History
¶9 Plaintiff Rebecca Reeves-Toney is a nonprobationary elementary school teacher employed by DPS. On February 9, 2015, she took workers’ compensation leave from her position after sustaining repeated injuries to her elbow while on the job.
¶10 Fourteen months later, on April 28, 2016, DPS sent Reeves-Toney a letter notifying her that it would no longer hold her position open. According to the letter, the collective bargaining agreement between DPS and the DCTA provided that when a teacher is on leave for a serious medical condition, the teacher’s position with DPS will not be held open for more than one year.
¶11 In August 2017, the same month Reeves-Toney’s temporary disability payments ended, DPS placed her in a limited term assignment for the 2017-18 school year. DPS also informed Reeves-Toney that if she did not secure a mutual consent position by August 31, 2018, she would be placed on unpaid leave.
¶12 On March 26, 2018, having been unable to secure a mutual consent position despite diligent efforts, Reeves-Toney filed the instant complaint seeking to enjoin DPS from placing her on unpaid leave.3 Reeves-Toney challenges the constitutionality of section
¶13 DPS sought to dismiss Reeves-Toney’s complaint under
¶14 Nevertheless, the trial court concluded that Reeves-Toney had sufficiently alleged taxpayer standing to challenge the mutual consent provisions in section
¶15 Turning to the complaint in this case, the trial court acknowledged that Reeves-Toney had alleged neither an “expenditure nor transfer of taxpayer funds . . . as related to [her] particular circumstances.” Nevertheless, the trial court was persuaded by Reeves-Toney’s argument that she had established a clear nexus between her status as a taxpayer and the allegedly unconstitutional
¶16 DPS then filed this
III. Analysis
¶17 We begin by discussing the exercise of our original jurisdiction in this case. Next, after setting out the applicable standard of review, we consider whether Reeves-Toney’s complaint alleged an injury in fact in her capacity as a taxpayer sufficient to establish standing to challenge the constitutionality of the mutual consent provisions in section
A. Original Jurisdiction
¶18 An original proceeding under
¶19 Reeves-Toney’s complaint challenges the constitutionality of landmark legislation that has already been the subject of significant litigation. Although our decisions in Masters and Johnson addressed some of the constitutional concerns with SB 191, the instant complaint raises a new constitutional challenge—whether the Act’s mutual consent provisions violate article IX, section 15 of the Colorado Constitution—a claim that had been raised in at least one other trial court action at the time we granted review. See Warden v. Westminster Pub. Sch., No. 2018CV31083 (Adams Cty. Dist. Ct. filed June 19, 2018). Finally, the petition presents a pure question of law amenable to swift resolution without further proceedings in the trial court. We conclude that these circumstances merit the exercise of our original jurisdiction.
B. Standard of Review
¶20 “Whether a plaintiff has standing to sue is a question of law that we review de novo.” Barber v. Ritter, 196 P.3d 238, 245 (Colo. 2008). In determining whether standing has been established, we accept as true all material allegations of fact in the complaint. State Bd. for Cmty. Colleges & Occupational Educ. v. Olson, 687 P.2d 429, 434 (Colo. 1984).
C. Reeves-Toney Lacks Taxpayer Standing
¶21 Standing is a threshold issue that must be satisfied in order for a court to decide a case on the merits. Ainscough v. Owens, 90 P.3d 851, 855 (Colo. 2004). The purpose of the standing inquiry is to test a
¶22 To establish standing under Colorado law, a plaintiff must show both “(1) that [she] ‘suffered an injury in fact,’ and (2) that the injury was to a ‘legally protected interest.’” Barber, 196 P.3d at 245 (quoting Wimberly v. Ettenberg, 570 P.2d 535, 538 (Colo. 1977)). The standing doctrine is rooted in the separation of the judicial, legislative, and executive powers mandated by article III of the Colorado Constitution. It prevents judicial intrusion into legislative and executive spheres by permitting only injured parties—not the public in general—to seek redress in the courts. Id. at 254-55 (Eid, J., concurring in the judgment). Put differently, the standing requirement distinguishes “those particularly injured by . . . government action,” who may present their controversy for resolution by the courts, from members of the general public, whose interests are more remote and who “must address their grievances against the government through the political process.” Id. at 255 (Eid, J., concurring in the judgment); see also Hickenlooper, ¶ 9, 338 P.3d at 1006 (“[T]he injury-in-fact requirement[] maintains the separation of powers . . . by preventing courts from invading legislative and executive spheres.”).
¶23 Although Colorado permits relatively broad taxpayer standing,5 “the injury-in-fact requirement [provides] conceptual limits to the doctrine when plaintiffs challenge an allegedly unlawful government action.” Hickenlooper, ¶ 12, 338 P.3d at 1008. We have recently clarified that to meet the injury-in-fact requirement, a plaintiff relying on her status as a taxpayer to confer standing must demonstrate “a clear nexus between h[er] status as a taxpayer and the challenged government action.” Id. Importantly, the interest of the taxpayer who challenges the constitutionality of government action is her “economic interest in having h[er] tax dollars spent in a constitutional manner.” Conrad v. City & Cty. of Denver, 656 P.2d 662, 668 (Colo. 1982). Thus, a taxpayer asserts injury in fact to a legally protected interest when she challenges the allegedly unconstitutional expenditure of public funds to which she has contributed by her payment of taxes. See Hickenlooper, ¶ 12, 338 P.3d at 1008.
¶24 In Barber v. Ritter, for example, we held that plaintiffs established taxpayer standing where they alleged that the legislature had transferred money from certain cash funds to the state’s General Fund to be used for general government expenses without voter approval in violation of article X, section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, and that the transfers created unconstitutional debt in violation of article XI, sections 3 and 4. 196 P.3d at 247, 253. Similarly, in Nicholl v. E-470 Public Highway Authority, we concluded that a taxpayer who challenged the E-470 highway financing plan under article X, section 20 had standing to “seek[] review of what he claims is an unlawful government expenditure which is contrary to our state constitution.” 896 P.2d 859, 866 (Colo. 1995). In Dodge v. Department of Social Services, we held that taxpayers had standing to challenge expenditures of public funds to finance nontherapeutic abortions where they alleged that such spending violated a constitutional article providing that no money could be disbursed from treasury except upon appropriations made by law. 600 P.2d 70, 71–72 (Colo. 1979). And in Conrad v. City & County of Denver, we held taxpayers had standing to challenge government use of public funds on a nativity scene they alleged unconstitutionally supported or gave preference to one religion to the exclusion of others. 656 P.2d 662, 669 (Colo. 1982). In each of these cases, the alleged unlawful government action concerned the alleged misappropriation or misuse of taxpayer money.
¶25 In contrast, in Hickenlooper, plaintiffs alleged that certain governors of Colorado had unconstitutionally endorsed religion during
¶26 Similarly, in Brotman v. East Lake Creek Ranch, L.L.P., we concluded that the Land Board’s alleged mismanagement of school lands had no effect on the plaintiff (a neighboring landowner) as a taxpayer where the plaintiff did not allege that the Land Board unlawfully spent any taxpayer funds, and where the alleged mismanagement of school lands could not, in any event, cause a shortfall in funds that would affect the state’s financing of schools through the taxing power. 31 P.3d 886, 891–92 (Colo. 2001).
¶27 Here, Reeves-Toney challenges the constitutionality of the mutual consent provisions of section
[E]ach employment contract . . . shall contain a provision stating that a teacher may be assigned to a particular school only with the consent of the hiring principal and with input from at least two teachers employed at the school and chosen by the faculty of teachers at the school to represent them in the hiring process, and after a review of the teacher’s demonstrated effectiveness and qualifications, which review demonstrates that the teacher’s qualifications and teaching experience support the instructional practices of his or her school.
The second, section
If a nonprobationary teacher is unable to secure a mutual consent assignment at a school of the school district after twelve months or two hiring cycles, whichever period is longer, the school district shall place the teacher on unpaid leave until such time as the teacher is able to secure an assignment.
Reeves-Toney complains that these provisions unconstitutionally delegate local school boards’ responsibility to control instruction as required by article IX, section 15 of the Colorado Constitution. That provision directs the General Assembly to provide for the organization of school districts, each with a board of education made up of elected directors.
¶28 We conclude that Reeves-Toney has failed to establish a clear nexus between her status as a taxpayer and the constitutional violation she alleges. To meet the injury-in-fact requirement, Reeves-Toney was required to show that “her tax dollars [we]re spent in an unconstitutional manner.” Barber, 196 P.3d at 255 (Eid, J., concurring in the judgment). But as the trial court found, her complaint asserted “neither an alleged expenditure nor transfer of taxpayer funds.” Given this finding, we hold the trial court erred in concluding that Reeves-Toney had nonetheless established standing as a taxpayer.
¶29 We disagree with the trial court’s reasoning that teachers’ salaries paid by DPS provide a sufficient nexus to confer taxpayer standing to challenge section
¶30 Taxpayer standing does not flow from every allegedly unlawful government action that has a cost. If it did, taxpayers would have standing to challenge virtually every government action with which they disagreed, and our state courts would be transformed into “forums in which to air generalized grievances about the conduct of state government.” Dodge, 600 P.2d at 72 (Dubofsky, J., specially concurring); cf. Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 593 (2007) (“[I]f every federal taxpayer could sue to challenge any Government expenditure, the federal courts would cease to function as courts of law and would be cast in the role of general complaint bureaus.”). Instead, to establish standing as a taxpayer, a plaintiff must establish an injury relevant to her status as a taxpayer—that is, to the use of her tax dollars. Here, because Reeves-Toney has alleged no unconstitutional expenditure of public funds to which she has contributed by her payment of taxes, we conclude that she has failed to establish any injury relevant to her status as a taxpayer.
¶31 Because we hold that Reeves-Toney has not shown standing as a taxpayer to challenge section
IV. Conclusion
¶32 We hold that because Reeves-Toney has alleged no injury based on an unlawful expenditure of taxpayer money, she has failed to demonstrate a clear nexus between her status as a taxpayer and the challenged government action. Reeves-Toney therefore lacks taxpayer standing to bring her constitutional challenge to section
JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ
Opinion of the Court